In the United States v. Ness case of 1917, the Supreme Court addressed whether a defendant could be prosecuted for conspiracy to defraud the U.S. government by obstructing its functions, even if those functions were not explicitly stated in any statute or law. The defendants had been convicted of conspiring to defraud the government by preventing it from exercising its right to exclude unfit immigrants through fraudulent medical certificates and false testimony. They argued that since there was no specific law stating this as a function of government, they couldn't conspire against it. The Supreme Court disagreed with this argument and upheld their convictions. It ruled that while certain governmental powers are specifically enumerated in statutes or laws, others are inherent and implied due to necessity - such as maintaining an efficient immigration system free from fraud and corruption. Therefore, conspiracies aimed at undermining these implicit powers can indeed constitute a crime under federal law.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Ness, Justice Holmes argued that the defendants should not be held liable under the Sherman Act because their actions did not constitute a restraint of trade or commerce among several states. He contended that while they may have conspired to monopolize and control prices within Minnesota, this was an intrastate matter and thus outside federal jurisdiction. Furthermore, he noted that there was no evidence showing any intent by the defendants to affect interstate commerce directly or indirectly. Therefore, in his view, applying federal antitrust law in this case would amount to overreach by Congress into areas reserved for state regulation under our system of dual sovereignty.